The case for a new Democratic Leadership Council

[Beet]

The Historical Analogy

32 years ago, Ronald Reagan, who four years earlier the liberal establishment had been convinced could never win, was re-elected in a 49-state landslide. Had it not been for a few thousand votes in Minnesota that went Democratic almost surely only because it was Walter Mondale's home state, the Democrats would have suffered the ignominy of losing every single state in the union. Post-election, former Sixties Ramparts editor Peter Collier came out to say he voted for Reagan.

The Democrats in 1984 were in better shape than today, controlling Congress. Yet a young legislative genius named Al From, who founded a nonprofit council to move the party radically to the center (the DLC), would in just eight years build a new winning coalition that would take back the White House and carry the popular vote in six out of the seven elections from 1992-2016. The Bill Clinton years were a golden age for the country, seeing massive reverses in rising crime, suicide rates, turned the tide in fighting AIDS, an economic boom that lifted up all income brackets and races, the only balanced budget in half a century, and no major wars. Their secret? Move radically to the center. This is what the Democrats should do today.

Setting the Scene

The current sad state of the opposition party hardly needs to be set. They have lost Middle America, aka non-yuppie White America. Watch this video, and ask yourself, how many of these people would be Democrats today? In 1984, this song was touted as an answer to Ronald Reagan! In places like Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri -- they're getting shut out. As recently as 2003, Howard Dean could say he wanted "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks"; now Democrats are trying to ban the Confederate flag. They need a root-and-branch transformation from the party of minorities and big cities to the party of Middle America again.

* Eject guns as a political issue. Gun ownership must be accepted as a part of American culture. The merits of owning a gun can be debated, but any government action to restrict ownership must be off the table.

* Moderate on abortion. Roe v. Wade can be moderated--to allow things like 20 week bans--without being overturned. Defend abortion rights in the early term, while de-emphasize the late term.

* Eject BLM. Police abuse is a serious issue, but it needs to be framed as an issue of police abuse of private citizens, not as an issue of race. All Lives Matter. The violent urban riots of '15-'16, viral outrage, etc. is not helping.

* Stop harassing citizens that disagree with you on social issues, like matters of sexual identity, gender or race. Disagreement doesn't equal prejudice or bad moral character. Abandon identity politics altogether.

Broadly, move to the center.

But Bernie would have won

That's conjectural. Bernie kept saying during the primaries that there was this massive wave of new voters who would turn out for him, but they never showed up. To the extent that he would have been more popular, it was because people saw him as personally an honest, decent guy. It was because some of his ideas appealed across the political "spectrum." It wasn't because he was some far-left socialist.

But progressives have been saying the DLC ushered in neoliberalism and is at fault for everything wrong today. How can the DLC be the model?

The DLC worked for its time. Moving to the center today doesn't mean neoliberalism. You can want money out of politics, to get tough on Wall Street, support nationalistic trade policies, support drug importation, and still be centrist on social issues. In many ways the task is easier now than in the 1980s. The issues they have to move to the center on are more stylistic. "Wedge" issues. Putting people who speak the language of middle America in the front and center. Not necessarily bread and butter issues.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Seriously.  Democrats have only lost this one election.  If they lose two or three more in a row, then a new DLC could be worthwhile for them.  But they shouldn't panic now.  They still have public opinion and the media on their side.

[Person Man]

Seriously.  Democrats have only lost this one election.  If they lose two or three more in a row, then a new DLC could be worthwhile for them.  But they shouldn't panic now.  They still have public opinion and the media on their side.

2 if you count 2014. I would say this is a good idea if we get shut out through 2020. Its kinda how we won in 2006.

[GlobeSoc]

I mean, if it works, but I'm wary of this idea leading to excessive economic centrism.

[Sumner 1868]

Remember when the party was told by numerous pundits it should move to the center in the post-2004 reflection stage? Instead, they moved slightly leftward from the pressure of their grassroots voters and temporarily reversed the 1994 GOP revolution and elected Barack Obama.

After 2008, the GOP was also told to move to the center. Instead, their base had them move rightward and they recaptured the House and later the Senate, and now elected a Reality TV star who simply spouted talk radio buzzwords.

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Beet, you have no right to advise the democrats given your open consideration of switching parties.

[RINO Tom]

When Reagan won in 1984, the Democrats had control of 35 governorships and the GOP had 15
Democrats had 46 seats in Congress, GOP had 54
Democrats had full control of 28 state legislatures, 11 split, and only 10 were in GOP control, hell by 1990 only 6 states had a GOP controlled state legislature

Those are all infinently worse than the Democrats today and this was during the so called "Reagan Revolution"

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

The problem is that Democrats didn't much care to keep a lot of those legislatures (specifically in Southern states), at least not enough to pour resources into them to stop an aggressive GOP.

[RINO Tom]

When Reagan won in 1984, the Democrats had control of 35 governorships and the GOP had 15
Democrats had 46 seats in Congress, GOP had 54
Democrats had full control of 28 state legislatures, 11 split, and only 10 were in GOP control, hell by 1990 only 6 states had a GOP controlled state legislature

Those are all infinently worse than the Democrats today and this was during the so called "Reagan Revolution"

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

The problem is that Democrats didn't much care to keep a lot of those legislatures (specifically in Southern states), at least not enough to pour resources into them to stop an aggressive GOP.

I honestly think that who controls senate seats, governorships, and state legislatures are outside of the parties control and just seem to ebb and flow depending on who's prez and other things. The GOP got lucky with Obama because their hatred of him was a great motivator for their electorate. But now both the Clintons and the Obamas are gone and their's no one left to motivate the hate of the GOP electorate and the GOP's policies are going to hurt their own electorate more than anyone else.

Trump, Paul Ryan, and McConnel are the most hated people in America right now and they run the show. That alone will probably tip the scales back in the Democrats favor irrespective of how much money is spent.

If anything, this election has taught me that money and "ground game" is not that important. People will turn out from their own enthusiasm for a candidate they like.

All the Dems need now is a marketing strategy to rebrand the party.

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

[Virginiá]

I honestly think that who controls senate seats, governorships, and state legislatures are outside of the parties control and just seem to ebb and flow depending on who's prez and other things. The GOP got lucky with Obama because their hatred of him was a great motivator for their electorate. But now both the Clintons and the Obamas are gone and their's no one left to motivate the hate of the GOP electorate and the GOP's policies are going to hurt their own electorate more than anyone else.

I would also add that at any one point there are structural reasons why one particular party can't win much in a certain region. Pretty much no matter what Republicans do right now, they aren't winning a legislative chamber in California nor are Democrats in Georgia. And if you go back in history, a big part of the Democrats' perpetually inflated numbers in Congress and in the states came from its generations-long domination of the South.

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

Those numbers I do frequently like to point out to people who obsess over the number of seats lost in the Obama era, as if this sort of loss of power is unique to any political party. Republicans spent much of the post-WW2 era up to the 90s as a distinct minority party at almost every level, and during Reagan and Bush1's time - this was arguably one of, if not thee worst stretch of GOP power in state legislatures in the post-WW2 era.

In fact, if you notice, in terms of Governorships, 1970 - 1992 was the worst post-WW2 period for GOP gubernatorial success. They never cracked 25 and had less than 20 most of that time. This directly coincided with their 20 out of 24 year run in the White House. The fact is, who is president at the time greatly affects party power downballot, regardless if they are some figure like Reagan or not. There is no free ride in the White House.

As for the Reagan Revolution - I'd argue that was more of a symbolic and ideological turning point for the GOP. I think that the GOP was likely going to take back Congress eventually regardless if the GOP had Reagan during the 1980s or just some moderately likeable placeholder. However, I do think Reagan's influence over young people at the time - younger boomers and genx'ers, helped prolong the GOP's political dominance. The GOP relies a lot on the people that grew up during the Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush years, so I guess actually even that respect Reagan didn't help too much more than the others.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

Nobody liked Hillary though. Had Hillary been elected, the GOP would of won a super majority in 2018. Hillary was totally loathed by the Bernie wing of the party even more than the Republicans hated her.

I think this will end in one of 2 ways:

1) Trump is where Carter was in 1976. Disliked by the opposing party yet not trusted or liked by his own party; on the cusp of an emerging realignment that hasn't quite been figured out yet. Trump may fail miserably at things totally our of his control like Carter did or just flat out fail to lead.

-or-

2) Trump is where Reagan was in the 80s. Meaning that he will do a decent job as president but the opposing party will make tons of gains and keep him in check while they figure out who/what their party is about.

Both parties are fractured and your seeing splits emerge even right now. Alot of the neocon faction of the GOP endorsed Hillary. If Trump pals up with Russia, your going to see that part split and possibly join with the Democratic coalition. Trump has also turned off a decent amount of republicans from the idea that the free market can solve every problem. They now dislike free trade and are warming up the idea that health care is a right. If Trump fails to deliver on these things then that's a wing of the GOP that can be split and taken by the Democrats in 2020, much like the GOP took blue collar Democrats in 1980.

The thing is, Democratic politicians and Democratic voters (outside of teens on Atlas and self-absorbed "pundits" on CNN) don't want to alter their policies in a way that would appeal to those voters.  Moderate/business/affluent/neocon/whatever Republicans might not like Trump, but their alternative is worse, and they voted accordingly in 2016.  I highly doubt the Democrats will move in a direction that appeals to them, and so far they've done the opposite.

[Mr. Smith]

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

Nobody liked Hillary though. Had Hillary been elected, the GOP would of won a super majority in 2018. Hillary was totally loathed by the Bernie wing of the party even more than the Republicans hated her.

I think this will end in one of 2 ways:

1) Trump is where Carter was in 1976. Disliked by the opposing party yet not trusted or liked by his own party; on the cusp of an emerging realignment that hasn't quite been figured out yet. Trump may fail miserably at things totally our of his control like Carter did or just flat out fail to lead.

-or-

2) Trump is where Reagan was in the 80s. Meaning that he will do a decent job as president but the opposing party will make tons of gains and keep him in check while they figure out who/what their party is about.

Both parties are fractured and your seeing splits emerge even right now. Alot of the neocon faction of the GOP endorsed Hillary. If Trump pals up with Russia, your going to see that part split and possibly join with the Democratic coalition. Trump has also turned off a decent amount of republicans from the idea that the free market can solve every problem. They now dislike free trade and are warming up the idea that health care is a right. If Trump fails to deliver on these things then that's a wing of the GOP that can be split and taken by the Democrats in 2020, much like the GOP took blue collar Democrats in 1980.

The thing is, Democratic politicians and Democratic voters (outside of teens on Atlas and self-absorbed "pundits" on CNN) don't want to alter their policies in a way that would appeal to those voters.  Moderate/business/affluent/neocon/whatever Republicans might not like Trump, but their alternative is worse, and they voted accordingly in 2016.  I highly doubt the Democrats will move in a direction that appeals to them, and so far they've done the opposite.

And Rocky Republicans of the Northeast didn't want to change things much to appeal to Dixiecrats either. They even put up John Anderson to try and stop it. But the "failures" of Carter compelled 'em.

Look what happened.

And as for '04, Bush was also on trial for "Mission Accomplished"...would've worked if there wasn't the Swiftboat and Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" line. It wasn't as simple as "Bush is an idiot".

[OSR stands with Israel]

I honestly think that who controls senate seats, governorships, and state legislatures are outside of the parties control and just seem to ebb and flow depending on who's prez and other things. The GOP got lucky with Obama because their hatred of him was a great motivator for their electorate. But now both the Clintons and the Obamas are gone and their's no one left to motivate the hate of the GOP electorate and the GOP's policies are going to hurt their own electorate more than anyone else.

I would also add that at any one point there are structural reasons why one particular party can't win much in a certain region. Pretty much no matter what Republicans do right now, they aren't winning a legislative chamber in California nor are Democrats in Georgia. And if you go back in history, a big part of the Democrats' perpetually inflated numbers in Congress and in the states came from its generations-long domination of the South.

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

Those numbers I do frequently like to point out to people who obsess over the number of seats lost in the Obama era, as if this sort of loss of power is unique to any political party. Republicans spent much of the post-WW2 era up to the 90s as a distinct minority party at almost every level, and during Reagan and Bush1's time - this was arguably one of, if not thee worst stretch of GOP power in state legislatures in the post-WW2 era.

In fact, if you notice, in terms of Governorships, 1970 - 1992 was the worst post-WW2 period for GOP gubernatorial success. They never cracked 25 and had less than 20 most of that time. This directly coincided with their 20 out of 24 year run in the White House. The fact is, who is president at the time greatly affects party power downballot, regardless if they are some figure like Reagan or not. There is no free ride in the White House.

As for the Reagan Revolution - I'd argue that was more of a symbolic and ideological turning point for the GOP. I think that the GOP was likely going to take back Congress eventually regardless if the GOP had Reagan during the 1980s or just some moderately likeable placeholder. However, I do think Reagan's influence over young people at the time - younger boomers and genx'ers, helped prolong the GOP's political dominance. The GOP relies a lot on the people that grew up during the Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush years, so I guess actually even that respect Reagan didn't help too much more than the others.

Reagan actually left with more house and senate  seats when he left office then before he took office unlike most post War presidents

House seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 158
Senate seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 41

House seats after Reagan(1988-1990): 175
Seante seats after Reagan(1988-1990):45

[Virginiá]

Reagan actually left with more house and senate  seats when he left office then before he took office unlike most post War presidents

House seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 158
Senate seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 41

House seats after Reagan(1988-1990): 175
Seante seats after Reagan(1988-1990):45

That's not really what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned governors offices and to a lesser degree, state legislatures. If you want to talk about Congress, 175 really is not that great if you consider the GOP's previous caucuses, omiting the watergate and 1958 losses. I mean it's not terrible (relevant to their others), but it's not great, either.

My point was that even presidents that were considered game changers preside over what can appear to be "decimated" parties. Reagan presided over a party that was more often in worse shape than what Obama has worked with - if you go by the raw numbers, anyway. The lasting effects of a consequential presidency will more than likely manifest themselves years down the line and not during their tenure.

[Person Man]

Reagan actually left with more house and senate  seats when he left office then before he took office unlike most post War presidents

House seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 158
Senate seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 41

House seats after Reagan(1988-1990): 175
Seante seats after Reagan(1988-1990):45

That's not really what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned governors offices and to a lesser degree, state legislatures. If you want to talk about Congress, 175 really is not that great if you consider the GOP's previous caucuses, omiting the watergate and 1958 losses. I mean it's not terrible (relevant to their others), but it's not great, either.

My point was that even presidents that were considered game changers preside over what can appear to be "decimated" parties. Reagan presided over a party that was more often in worse shape than what Obama has worked with - if you go by the raw numbers, anyway. The lasting effects of a consequential presidency will more than likely manifest themselves years down the line and not during their tenure.

Going from like 37% of congress to 43% of congress isn't that big of a  deal, anyways and especially when it is based on a reigion switching from finally getting over what happened a 100 years ago.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Seriously.  Democrats have only lost this one election.  If they lose two or three more in a row, then a new DLC could be worthwhile for them.  But they shouldn't panic now.  They still have public opinion and the media on their side.

2 if you count 2014. I would say this is a good idea if we get shut out through 2020. Its kinda how we won in 2006.

I'm talking presidential, not midterm.

[Figueira]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

[RINO Tom]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

It's not the *issues* that were damaging, it was the *attitude* of 2016's Democrats.  I think based on the swing maps, that is pretty obvious.  Hillary was fine with shunning some "undesirable" (but reliably Democratic voters) in favor of trying to woo some Republicans, specifically affluent ones in suburban areas ... she didn't get anywhere near enough of the latter to offset the loss of the former, and pretty much the entire Democratic leadership realizes that was a huge mistake of a strategy, and that's why they're moving in an opposite direction (MUCH to the dismay of Non Swing Voter, who might have to decide to become a swing voter soon, LOL).

[Person Man]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

It's not the *issues* that were damaging, it was the *attitude* of 2016's Democrats.  I think based on the swing maps, that is pretty obvious.  Hillary was fine with shunning some "undesirable" (but reliably Democratic voters) in favor of trying to woo some Republicans, specifically affluent ones in suburban areas ... she didn't get anywhere near enough of the latter to offset the loss of the former, and pretty much the entire Democratic leadership realizes that was a huge mistake of a strategy, and that's why they're moving in an opposite direction (MUCH to the dismay of Non Swing Voter, who might have to decide to become a swing voter soon, LOL).

Its not that we are going to give up on issues that NSV cares about

[Figueira]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

It's not the *issues* that were damaging, it was the *attitude* of 2016's Democrats.  I think based on the swing maps, that is pretty obvious.  Hillary was fine with shunning some "undesirable" (but reliably Democratic voters) in favor of trying to woo some Republicans, specifically affluent ones in suburban areas ... she didn't get anywhere near enough of the latter to offset the loss of the former, and pretty much the entire Democratic leadership realizes that was a huge mistake of a strategy, and that's why they're moving in an opposite direction (MUCH to the dismay of Non Swing Voter, who might have to decide to become a swing voter soon, LOL).

That's all true, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

[RINO Tom]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

It's not the *issues* that were damaging, it was the *attitude* of 2016's Democrats.  I think based on the swing maps, that is pretty obvious.  Hillary was fine with shunning some "undesirable" (but reliably Democratic voters) in favor of trying to woo some Republicans, specifically affluent ones in suburban areas ... she didn't get anywhere near enough of the latter to offset the loss of the former, and pretty much the entire Democratic leadership realizes that was a huge mistake of a strategy, and that's why they're moving in an opposite direction (MUCH to the dismay of Non Swing Voter, who might have to decide to become a swing voter soon, LOL).

That's all true, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I was responding to Northwest, just keeping your response to him/her as part of the conversation thread.

[Figueira]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

It's not the *issues* that were damaging, it was the *attitude* of 2016's Democrats.  I think based on the swing maps, that is pretty obvious.  Hillary was fine with shunning some "undesirable" (but reliably Democratic voters) in favor of trying to woo some Republicans, specifically affluent ones in suburban areas ... she didn't get anywhere near enough of the latter to offset the loss of the former, and pretty much the entire Democratic leadership realizes that was a huge mistake of a strategy, and that's why they're moving in an opposite direction (MUCH to the dismay of Non Swing Voter, who might have to decide to become a swing voter soon, LOL).

That's all true, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I was responding to Northwest, just keeping your response to him/her as part of the conversation thread.

Ah, OK. No problem.

[hopper]

Oh yes, give up all principles to target a shrinking segment of the population after winning the popular vote by 3 million.

No.  Democrats need to be patient and look at the big picture.  In the 2020's a number of states are going to flip from reliably Red to reliably Blue... certainly Georgia and Arizona... perhaps North Carolina. 

A large part of the Democrat's problem is they have a consistently decent but not quite good enough share of the vote in many southern states (e.g., Georgia, North Carolina, Texas).  This results in a lot of wasted votes.  However, as the minority population grows in those states, their fortunes will reverse and the GOP will get the raw end of this... getting a consistent but not good enough share of the vote.  The Democrats need to keep this coalition rather than piss it off by catering to voters that are long gone.

Before the election I was not one of the people here adamantly trumpeting how Hillary would win.  Now all those seem people have suddenly done a complete and utter 180 and are trumpeting how the Democratic party needs to be completely restructured.  This was alarmist on both fronts.  The trendiness are clear and they are moving in the Democrat's favor... Virginia was once a consistently Republican state... the demographics changed over a 10-15 year period and now it is a consistently Democratic state.  This will occur on a wider level soon.

....Maybe at the Presidential Level but at the state level not really. Remember Doug Wilder, and Chuck Robb? Mark Warner also got elected Governor in 2001 which pre-dates the 2006+ era or Obama era of US politics. True the Republicans controlled both chambers of the Virginia State Legislature from 2000-2007. In 1996-1997 The Virginia State Senate was tied at  20R, 20D, and Dems still controlled "The House Of Delegates" 52-47-1. In 1998-1999 The Republicans took the majority in the State Senate 21-19 and Dems Retained the Speakership in "The House Of Delegates" because the 1 Indie(Lacey Putney) caucused with the Republicans making it 50D-49R-1 Independent Republican. Dems controlled outright majorities in both bodies in the  State Legislature from 1870-1995 till split control in the State Senate in 1996-1997.

[Virginiá]

....Maybe at the Presidential Level but at the state level not really.

You could say that for just about any Southern state, no? It took Republicans a long time to catch up to their presidential success in that region, with some of the most unlikely states not getting GOP legislatures until 2010-2012.

[hopper]

....Maybe at the Presidential Level but at the state level not really.

You could say that for just about any Southern state, no? It took Republicans a long time to catch up to their presidential success in that region, with some of the most unlikely states not getting GOP legislatures until 2010-2012.

True Southern States have Democrat Party histories rather than Republican Party Histories.

Interesting note about the Virginia Governor's Office the Republicans had the Governor's Office for 3 straight terms from 1970-1981 followed by Democrats having the office for 3 straights terms from 1982-1993. The Democrats had the Governors Office from 1874-1969 till A. Linwood Holton Jr's(R) win in the 1969 Governors Race.

The Republicans had the majority of Virginia's US House Seats from 1971-1986 except for 1975-1976 when the state congressional seat delegation was tied 5-5. 1969-1970 the state's congressional seat delegation was tied as well.

[hopper]

When Reagan won in 1984, the Democrats had control of 35 governorships and the GOP had 15
Democrats had 46 seats in Congress, GOP had 54
Democrats had full control of 28 state legislatures, 11 split, and only 10 were in GOP control, hell by 1990 only 6 states had a GOP controlled state legislature

Those are all infinently worse than the Democrats today and this was during the so called "Reagan Revolution"

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

The problem is that Democrats didn't much care to keep a lot of those legislatures (specifically in Southern states), at least not enough to pour resources into them to stop an aggressive GOP.

I honestly think that who controls senate seats, governorships, and state legislatures are outside of the parties control and just seem to ebb and flow depending on who's prez and other things. The GOP got lucky with Obama because their hatred of him was a great motivator for their electorate. But now both the Clintons and the Obamas are gone and their's no one left to motivate the hate of the GOP electorate and the GOP's policies are going to hurt their own electorate more than anyone else.

Trump, Paul Ryan, and McConnel are the most hated people in America right now and they run the show. That alone will probably tip the scales back in the Democrats favor irrespective of how much money is spent.

If anything, this election has taught me that money and "ground game" is not that important. People will turn out from their own enthusiasm for a candidate they like.

All the Dems need now is a marketing strategy to rebrand the party.

Hatred of Obama had really nothing to do with it. The GOP won Indies by double digits in '10 and '14.